Political Dynasties

I remember back in the day when there was news of the USSR Politburo elections and there was a 7 or 8% turn over, the media would say how predictable and how fixed the elections were. Then I remember also when like Pakistan and India when daughters or spouses of countries leaders were "elected" it was somehow fixed.

But think about it! If Clinton wins the election we will have at least 25 years of Clinton and Bush. Would that fall into the category of a political dynasty? By most definitions, it would be a political dynasty, but for some reason it will be the desire of the people for this to occur. Does that then, mean that the ones labeled in the past we also as legitimate?

Now let us look at the Congress where about 95% were re-elected to serve, but yet in the USSR it was a fixed election when 93% were re-elected. Which is it?

All I am saying is that the American people are allowing these political dynasties to exist. Is it laziness? Or possibly stupidity? Just what is it that makes the continuation of these families to rule the country so appealing? When will the people realize this is not really in their best interests?

What will the future bring with these festering dynasties? After all Jeb Bush could have a shot. How about Chelsea? We are traveling along a dangerous path in my opinion. Where are the new ideas that will bring a change in the system? Not with the Clintons. The DLC has kept the same line and they are the heart of the Democratic Party. When Bill Clinton became president and moved the Dem Party to the right, new ideas became a dirty notion.

The American people are setting themselves up for generations of the same couple of families ruling the country. This is not my idea of how a democracy should work. If you are truly a voter looking for change and Clinton wins in November, they will be sadly disappointed. But then that is what you get when popularity, race or gender are the important things in a campaign. You will just have to live with it.